Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 5196, Case file # 95-^243506

Material. Examiner Malone (RQ)

Remarks :

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson •

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair a nd Fiber - ~

Review commenced at: 8:45 AM (Time), 09/16 / 99 (Date)

File#: 95-24350 6

Laboratory #(s): 10608001 .

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

. X

o

VJ.

□

X .

QW

□

X

NM .

□

X‘

SQ

□

X

TT

' □

X

Materials Reviewed •

Trial testimony transcripts) of: . Michael Malone (two transcripts)

Testimony Date(s): 1982; 1983 Pages: 227-241;. 22 1-241

i .

Laboratory Reports):

Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:
Laboratoiy’Number:

10608001

Date:

Date:

Date:

Jul 15, 1981

Examiner Bench Notes of:. RQ and unknown technicians)

■ Laboratory Number: 10608001

X No

Was any other material reviewed? Yes
If yes, please identify and/or describe the material:

Results of Review

File #: 95-243506 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q14-Q31, Q34-Q35, Q37-Q38,

Q40-Q57, Q59, Q65-Q66, Q69-Q72, Q75-Q82i Q88-Q91, Q94-Q98, Q101-Q102, Q104-Q106,Q112-Q114, K3-
K4, K8-K1-1 ; ; .

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
'additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

1) ' Did the examiner perform- the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the •

methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)?

□ Yes □ No HJOJnable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reDprt(s) supported and adequately documented in.

• the bench notes? ** oYes. fa No □ Unable to Determine.

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any "No" or. "Unable to. Determine" Responses

□ Transcript not available. .

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

□ Yes

□ No

O Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? *

□ Yes

efNo

□ Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner’s expertise?

a Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use "Additional Comments" Sheet, if, needed)

File#: ' 95-243506

# 1 . There i s insufficient documentation to determine if the hair comparison was performed in a scientifically _
' acceptable mariner. • • , . —

#2. The results are not adequately documented i n the notes- The notes are not dated, are in pencil and have
some erasures. So me hair were deemed unsuitable with no documented reason or explanation. The ^

examiner uses abbreviations that are difficult to inte rpret. Some questioned hair were matched or eliminated
coming f rom die known samples without characterization of the microscopic characteristics observed in these _
questioned or known hair. The technici ans do notdocument the recovery 6f any hair from .the questioned items.
#4. In the 1982 transcript, the examiner testifies >1 processed", "I found", "I examined", "I removed" .when its
more likely the-technicians processed and removed the questioned hair from the items. •

Review completed at: 10:15 AM (Time), 09/16/99

(Date)

Total time spent conducting-review (to nearest 1/4
hour):

./ /i- hi

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent,, unbiased, manner and that the results of my review
are fully, documented on this report consisting of a. total of - 2 . P 3 ^;

• (Date)

(Signature)

3 . 3

Initials: